1. Applicant's Name: a. Application Date: 12 April 2017 b. Date Received: 19 June 2017 c. Counsel: None 2. REQUEST, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant seeks relief contending, in effect, returned home and found his wife involved with another man, bearing his child as well; this took the applicant into a mentally distorted and disturbing state of mind. The applicant was dedicated to the service, especially during the time spent in Iraq. The applicant's performance ratings from early within the career, as well as, peak services should be taken into account and the applicant should be granted an honorable discharge accordingly. The applicant was refused jobs that the applicant would excel at because of the lack of an honorable discharge after serving the country. During this time of mental distress, the applicant had no one to take care of him or give the applicant the needed psychological assistance. Due to depression and stress, the applicant could not perform to the utmost ability. The applicant's meager performance should not be made the basis for granting this discharge. Per the Board's Medical Officer, a voting member, based on the information available for review at the time in the service record, the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA), and Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV), notes indicate the following Behavioral Health (BH) diagnoses: Adjustment Disorder with Depressed Mood and Nicotine Dependence. JLV indicates that the applicant has no VA medical records. Based on the available information, the applicant does not have a mitigating BH condition for the misconduct that led to separation. In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post-service accomplishments, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. (Board member names available upon request) 3. DISCHARGE DETAILS: a. Reason / Authority / Codes / Characterization: Misconduct (Serious Offense) / AR 635-200, Paragraph 14-12c / JKQ / RE-4 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions b. Date of Discharge: 4 June 2010 c. Separation Facts: Yes (1) Date of Notification of Intent to Separate: 18 May 2010 (2) Basis for Separation: The applicant was informed of the following reasons for his discharge; On 4 March 2010, he was tried and convicted by Summary Court-Martial for being AWOL from his unit from (31 October 2009 through 8 January 2010), which was terminated by apprehension, being AWOL with intent to miss field exercises (13 August 2009 through 21 September 2009); failing to go his appointed place of duty on divers occasions, missing movement by design and destroying his T A-50. (3) Recommended Characterization: Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (4) Legal Consultation Date: 18 May 2010 (5) Administrative Separation Board: Applicant unconditionally waived his right to appear before an administrative separation board. (6) Separation Decision Date / Characterization: 25 May 2010 / Under Other Than Honorable Conditions 4. SERVICE DETAILS: a. Date / Period of Enlistment: 9 April 2007 / 3 years, 16 weeks / moral waiver, 26 April 2007 b. Age at Enlistment / Education / GT Score: 19 years / GED Certificate / 105 c. Highest Grade Achieved / MOS / Total Service: E-4 / 11B10, Infantryman / 2 years, 9 months, 8 days d. Prior Service / Characterizations: None e. Overseas Service / Combat Service: SWA / Iraq, 8 November 2007 to 25 October 2008 f. Awards and Decorations: ARCOM, NDSM, ASR, OSR, CIB g. Performance Ratings: NA h. Disciplinary Action(s) / Evidentiary Record: Summary Court-Martial, dated 4 March 2010, shows the applicant was found guilty of; without authority, absented himself from his unit x2, (31 October 2009 to 8 January 2010) and (13 August 2009 to 21 September 2009); without authority, fail to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions x3 (23 October 2009, 28 October 2009 and 29 October 2009); through design miss the movement of his unit, with which he was required in the course of duty to move (14 August 2009); without proper authority, destroy by burning his personally issued TA-50 equipment of a value of more than $500, military property of the United States, the amount of said damage being in the sum of about $2,000 (13 August 2009). He was sentenced to reduction to PVT / E-1 and confinement for 30 days. A charge sheet, dated 19 February 2010, see paragraph 4h above. Military police Report, dated 8 October 2009, relates the applicant was under investigation for wrongful damage of government property, on post. Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 22 October 2009, revealed there is no evidence of a cognitive disorder or severe mental disease or defect. From a psychiatric perspective, the applicant met retention requirements, was fit for duty and commands full capacity. He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command. i. Lost Time / Mode of Return: AWOL x2 for 107 days, 13 August 2009 to 21 September 2009 for 39 days, mode of return unknown and 31 October 2009 to 8 January 2010 for 68 days, apprehended by civilian authorities. Military confinement for 30 days, 4 March 2010 to 4 April 2010. Total lost time 137 days. j. Diagnosed PTSD / TBI / Behavioral Health: None 5. APPLICANT-PROVIDED EVIDENCE: DD Form 293 (two pages); self-authored statement; support statement; DD Form 214; applicant's statement, unsigned; letter, Director, Case Management Division; a second DD Form 293 with attached duplicate documents; OMPF documents (153) pages; 6. POST SERVICE ACCOMPLISHMENTS: None submitted with the application. 7. REGULATORY CITATION(S): Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted. Paragraph 14-12c states a Soldier is subject to action per this section for commission of a serious military or civilian offense, if the specific circumstances of the offense warrant separation and a punitive discharge is, or would be, authorized for the same or a closely related offense under the Manual for Courts-Martial. National Defense Authorization Act 2017 provided specific guidance to the Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records and Discharge Review Boards when considering discharge upgrade requests by Veterans claiming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) in connection with combat or sexual assault or sexual harassment as a basis for discharge review. Further, it provided that Boards will include, as a voting board member, a physician trained in mental health disorders, a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist when the discharge upgrade claim asserts a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; as a basis for the discharge. In August 2017, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness provided further clarifying guidance to the Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharge due to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Liberal consideration will be given to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part on matters relating to mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Special consideration will be given to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determinations that document a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in a less than honorable discharge characterization. Special consideration will also be given in cases where a civilian provider confers diagnoses of a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment if the case records contain narratives supporting symptomatology at the time of service or when any other evidence which may reasonably indicate that a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment existed at the time of discharge might have mitigated the misconduct that caused a discharge of lesser characterization. Conditions documented in the service record that can reasonably be determined to have existed at the time of discharge will be considered to have existed at the time of discharge. In cases in which a mental health condition, including PTSD; TBI; or sexual assault/harassment may be reasonably determined to have existed at the time of discharge, those conditions will be considered potential mitigating factors in the misconduct that caused the characterization of service in question. All Boards will exercise caution in weighing evidence of mitigation in cases in which serious misconduct precipitated a discharge with a less than Honorable characterization of service. Potentially mitigating evidence of the existence of undiagnosed combat related PTSD, PTSD-related conditions due to TBI or sexual assault/harassment as causative factors in the misconduct resulting in discharge will be carefully weighed against the severity of the misconduct. PTSD is not a likely cause of premeditated misconduct. Caution shall be exercised in weighing evidence of mitigation in all cases of misconduct by carefully considering the likely causal relationship of symptoms to the misconduct. 8. DISCUSSION OF FACT(S): The applicant requests an upgrade of the characterization of service from under other than honorable conditions to honorable. The applicant's record of service, the issues and documents submitted with his application were carefully reviewed. The record confirms the applicant's discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel. It brought discredit on the Army, and was prejudicial to good order and discipline. By the misconduct (serious offense), the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a general (under honorable conditions) or an honorable discharge at the time of separation. The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that the applicant's service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance, such that he should have been retained on Active Duty. The applicant seeks relief contending, he returned home and found his wife involved with another man, bearing his child as well; this took him into a mentally distorted and disturbing state of mind. The service record does not support the applicant's contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition. The applicant further contends, he was dedicated in his service, especially during the time he spent serving in Iraq; and his performance ratings from his early career as well as peak services should be taken into account and he should be granted an honorable discharge accordingly. The applicant's service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceeding were carefully considered. The applicant also contends, he was refused jobs that he would excel at because he was refused an honorable discharge after serving his country. The Board does not grant relief for the purpose of gaining employment or enhancing employment opportunities. Furthermore, the applicant contends, during his time of mental distress, he had no one to take care of him or give him needed psychological assistance; and due to depression and stress, he could not perform to his utmost ability. The record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldier. Lastly, the applicant contends, his meager performance should not be made the basis for granting him a discharge. Before initiating discharge proceedings, the command ensured the applicant was appropriately counseled about his deficiencies which could lead to separation. The command made an assessment of the applicant's potential for becoming a fully satisfactory Soldier. The evidence contained in the service record establishes the applicant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome noted deficiencies. As the applicant did not subsequently conform to required standards of discipline and performance, the command appropriately determined the applicant did not demonstrate the potential for further military service. The record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant's discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. The third party statement provided with the application speak highly of the applicant's performance. However, the persons providing the character reference statement was not in a position to fully understand or appreciate the expectations of the applicant's chain of command. As such, this statement did not provide any evidence sufficiently compelling to overcome the presumption of government regularity. The service record indicates that someone in the discharge process erroneously entered on the applicant's DD Form 214, block 27, reentry code as 4. The discharge packet confirms the separation authority approved the discharge by reason of misconduct (serious offense). Soldiers processed for misconduct (serious offense) will be assigned an SPD Code of JKQ and an RE Code of 3. The discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the regulation, was within the discretion of the separation authority, and the applicant was provided full administrative due process. 9. DOCUMENTS / TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING PERSONAL APPEARANCE: In addition to the evidence in the record, the Board carefully considered the additional document(s) and testimony presented by the applicant at the personal appearance hearing. a. The applicant submitted the following additional document(s): None b. The applicant presented the following additional contention(s): None c. Witness(es) / Observer(s): None 10. BOARD DETERMINATION: In a personal appearance hearing conducted at Arlington, VA on 29 October 2018, and by a 5-0 vote, the Board determined that the discharge was too harsh based on the applicant's length and quality of service, to include combat service, post-service accomplishments, the circumstances surrounding the discharge (i.e. in-service diagnosis of OBH) and as a result it is inequitable. Accordingly, the Board voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general under honorable conditions and changed to the separation authority to AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a, the narrative reason for separation to Misconduct (Minor Infractions), the separation code to JKN, and the reentry code to RE-3. 11. BOARD ACTION DIRECTED: a. Issue a New DD-214: Yes b. Change Characterization to: General Under Honorable Conditions c. Change Reason to: Misconduct (Minor Infractions) d. Change Authority to: AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12a e. Change SPD / RE Code to: JKN / RE-3 Authenticating Official: Legend: AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NCO - Noncommissioned Officer SCM - Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial BH - Behavioral Health HD - Honorable Discharge NOS - Not Otherwise Specified SPD - Separation Program Designator CG - Company Grade Article 15 IADT - Initial Active Duty Training OAD - Ordered to Active Duty TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury CID - Criminal Investigation Division MP - Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge ELS - Entry Level Status MST - Military Sexual Trauma PTSD - Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions FG - Field Grade Article 15 NA - Not applicable RE - Reentry VA - Veterans Affairs ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE AR20170010145 6